Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 925
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T. Ravindran, J.
K. Ramachandran – Appellant
Versus
State Represented by Inspector of Police, Guduvancherry Police Station, Kancheepuram – Respondent
Crl. A. No. 375 of 2014
Decided On : 09-07-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :V. Gopinath, Senior Counsel, for M/s. L. Mahendran, Advocate.
For the Respondent:R. Ravichandran (Crl. side), Government Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of proving cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand for dowry to activate the statutory presumption under section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act.
Headnote:
Dowry Harassment - Criminal Appeal - IPC 498(A), IPC 304(B) - Summary of Acts and Sections: IPC 498(A), IPC 304(B) - The court discussed the legal provisions related to dowry harassment, cruelty, and presumption as to dowry death under section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. The court emphasized the requirement of proving cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand for dowry to activate the statutory presumption under section 113B.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under IPC 498(A) and IPC 304(B) for dowry harassment and causing the suicide of the deceased. The prosecution alleged that the appellant and others demanded dowry, harassed the deceased, and forced her to commit suicide. However, the evidence presented by the prosecution was found to be unreliable and insufficient to establish the charges.
Finding of the Court:
The court found serious doubts and suspicions surrounding the prosecution's case. It concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt was extended in favor of the accused, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
Issues: The main issue revolved around proving the dowry harassment and cruelty leading to the deceased's suicide. The reliability and sufficiency of the evidence presented by the prosecution were also key issues.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement of proving cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand for dowry to activate the statutory presumption under section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. It highlighted the need for unassailable evidence to substantiate the ingredients of the offenses under IPC 498(A) and IPC 304(B).
Final Decision: The conviction and sentence imposed on the accused were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the offenses under IPC 498(A) and IPC 304(B). The criminal appeal was allowed, and the bail bond executed by the appellant was cancelled with the refund of any paid fine amount.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer:- This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment dated 30.06.2014 passed in S.C.No.176 of 2009 on the file of the Mahalir Neethi Mandram, Chengelpet, Kancheepuram District.)
1. The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpet at Kancheepuram District, convicted the appellant/A1 under Section 498(A) IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and under Section 304(B) IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and directed that the sentences imposed on him shall run concurrently and acquitted A2 and A3 of the offences put forth against them under Sections 498(A) and 304(B) and impugning the conviction and sentence imposed on him, the appellant/A1 has preferred the present criminal appeal.
2. Briefly stated, according to the prosecution case, the accused A1 to A3, on 14.12.2008 and prior to the same, had been demanding and harassing the deceased Sasikala to bring Rs.50,000/- for purchasing motor cycle and consequently, Sasikala had committed suicide on 14.12.2008 by pouring kerosene on her body and setting herself ablaze and on account of the dowry harassment caused by the accused A1 to A3 as aforestated Sasikala died by committing suicide within seven years of her marriage and the first accused also had compelled/forced the deceased Sasikala to have sexual intercourse with him and accordingly also had committed rape on her when she was alone in the house and thus, A1 to A3 had been charged under Sections 498(A) IPC & 304(B) IPC and A1 had been also charged under Section 376 IPC.
3. To sustain the prosecution charges, PWs 1 to 14 were examined, Exs.A1 to A15 were marked. Material Objects 1 and 2 were marked. On the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. qua the incriminating evidence and the accused had denied the same. According to the accused, they had not committed the offences put forth against them and further, it is stated that the deceased Sasikala was mentally affected and she had herself committed suicide on account of her mental illness and there has been no ill-treatment and harassment of the deceased on the part of the accused by demanding dowry.
4. On the side of the accused no oral and documentary evidence has been adduced and no material object has been marked.
5. The trial Court, on an appreciation of all the materials placed on record, has finally concluded that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish that A1 has committed the offence of rape under section 376 IPC levied against him. Furthermore, also concluded that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish that the accused A2 and A3 had committed cruelty and ill treatment to the deceased Sasikala by demanding dowry and Sasikala had not committed suicide due to dowry harassment on the part of A2 and A3 and accordingly, the trial Court had acquitted them of the offences levelled against them. However, proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant/A1 for the offences under sections 498(A) and 304(B) as aforestated.
6. The first accused is the Father in law of the deceased Sasikala. For sustaining the conviction and sentence imposed on the first accused, the trial Court seems to have placed reliance upon the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 who are the parents and brother of the deceased Sasikala. However, as contended by the accused counsel, in the complaint Ex.P1 lodged by PW1, the deceased’s father, though has imputed A1 as dowry harassment, however, PW1 himself during the course of examination has admitted that he had not disclosed in Ex.P1 about A1’s harassment to his daughter. On a reading of Ex.P1 complaint, as rightly contended by the accused counsel, nothing has been whispered in the same as to on what date A1 had demanded dowry at the first instance and also on what date he had demanded dowry at the second instance and on the other hand, the complaint reads very vaguely as if a
